If you’ve got the stomach for it, the policy is here.
The policy – if it deserves the title – is essentially a grab-bag of carbon abatement policies funded by taxation. It’s not a big new tax, it’s a big new expense that will either get paid for by cutting something else, increasing the deficit, or increasing taxes elsewhere.
The seriousness of the individual measures might be best judged by a promise to plant 20 million new trees. 20 milllion new trees, at a rough approximation, is about the equivalent of 20,000 hectares of forest. Australia’s forested area is about 150 million hectares.
Elsewhere: Peter Wood’s post points to the nonsensical apples-and-oranges cost comparisons in the policy. Christine Milne has a press release which notes a few bright spots but overall thoroughly slams the policy.
Update [by Mark]: Ben Eltham analyses the policy in New Matilda:
The party of free enterprise has proposed a policy of free pollution.
All carrot, no stick.
The “policy” (cough) mentions “great big new tax” no less than 14 times!
Not even carrot. Though since neither side is actually doing very much – it really comes down to the politics.
Incidenallty: here’s the wind up from Copenhagen – the agreed pledges are in.
Not nearly enough, but neither is it insubstantial: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/01/2806762.htm?site=news
The policy talks of establishing ‘125 mid scale solar systems in schools and communities and 25 geothermal or tidal power micro projects in suitable towns’. I’m curious about the numbers and what the definitions might be of ‘mid scale’ and ‘micro projects’. Nothing is offered, but of course anyone being taken in by reading this stuff who lives in a ’suitable town’ will have their hand up for the Abbot’s blessing. Of course it would all be different if the hot rocks and wave power were eventually to turn nuclear.
The only plus is the DC network but like the numbers and definitions and how they came to be in this policy, I reserve judgement.
What a flim-flam joke. Surely the public will see this thing is made outta toothpicks and clag??
The Greens climate change policies are far more carefully put together than this back-of-an-envelope job.
patrickg @ 5,
They may not . That’s the problem. Even though it is utter rubbish it sounds all right and it (ahem) costs nothing. That’s Joe Average’s perception, anyway, I fear. A rocky road to the next election.
I don’t know about that, Paul. Labor has all sorts of ammunition to pick holes in it now there’s actually something committed to paper with verifiable measures and numbers. I’m sure they’ll make ample use of that opportunity.
I only bothered with the Executive Summary.
Lots of apparently big numbers, including handouts to industry (unless I’ve misread it), and a whole lot of bullshit about soil carbon which I’ll bet they’ll double-dip.
In fact I suggest this is a trojan horse for a nuclear powered Australia. If the 25 ’suitable’ towns across Australia are necessarily coastal to make use of tidal power they equate well to Ziggy Switowski’s nuclear view for the Howard Government.
The coastal locations would be necessary for reactor cooling. Add in the Direct Current (DC) network and you have the makings of a national nuclear grid.
Otherwise I agree with you Paul that the whole thing will appeal to Joe Average.
I’m sure Labor can find some ammunition for a nuclear scare campaign in there too! There must be lots of pro-nuclear grabs from Coalition MPs on file…
I haven’t gone beyond page 1 yet and already it is comparing oranges with apples. It states:
“Our policy will cost $3.2 billion over 4 years, while the ETS costs $40.6 billion over the first four years.”
It is referring to the their policy spending $3.2b, and the ETS raising $40.6b from sale of permits (much of which will go back to households or polluters), but they are completely different things. And the “cost” of a policy is how much is spent on emission reductions, be it by firms, the government, or whatever. This has nothing to do with the amount of auction revenue in the ETS. Obviously this document hasn’t gone through a peer review process.
All right. I admit I get very nervous at the thought og Howard’s clones getting anywhere nrear the levers of Government. You’re probably right. And the idea of Abbott’s environmental policy being used as a stalking horse to push Oz into nuclear energy,well. pablo, they’re such a bunch of deceitful bastards I have no problem taking that on board at all.
Regardless of what you think of the policy I thought the level of scrutiny by the media at the press conference was very intense and no doubt it will continue this week. Which leads me to the question: Why hasnt there been this level of scrutiny or intense observation on the CPRS?
The other point to make is that whatever the merits or otherwise of the new policy, it contains a ring and a concept that ordinary people understand. And I suspect Labor will have to rethink their strategy and the way theyre attacking it if this afternoons question time is anything to go by.
The truly awful thing about this is that Greg Hunt must surely know what a sham it is. Does he sleep well at nights, I wonder.
@14 – Jamo, what was the thrust of the question time attack?
This is the Greens’ line:
http://www.greensmps.org.au/content/media-release/abbott-joins-rudd-letting-polluters-hook-recipe-rorts
Christine Milne has a good point about the potential for rorts and porkbarrelling in this ‘policy’, too.
I have just written a blog post attempting to explain the difference between the price of emissions and cost of mitigation – something that the Coalition does not appear to understand.
This is just old policy re-hashed isn’t it? Most of this stuff is being implemented in some form already.
Libs Greenwashing = FAIL.
Fact is, the economy’s going well, and the chances of Rudd losing this year are extremely low – even if Abbott doesnt implode. Which he probably will. He is actually a maniac. I wodner how long he can hide it?
But of course, thats no reason to be complacent. Some thoughts on ALP weak spots:
- I think its IS a problem that the CPRS is basically inexplicable to punters, and a bigger problem that no one has tried to. bad strategy – leaves ALP vulnerable to all sort of nonsensical policy – provided its doesnt sounds as ‘dramatic’.
- Tertiary Students can no longer be relied upon to vote ALP. Im not exactly clear on why, but many are not happy at all about some new Austudy arrangements. Vote-changingly not happy, from what I hear.
Other than that – I fully expect the gap to widen again when Abbott meets proper scrutiny.
Mark @ 18. I think thats the best line of attack but Labor cant credibly run it because of exactly the same problem with their CPRS.
The line theyve run this afternoon in the House is ‘Abbott doesnt believe in Climate Change’ and ‘Puts burden on Working Families’. ‘The former is countered by saying its irrelevant because theyve now got a policy and the second by saying it might cost the taxpayer money but a hell of a lot less than Labors CPRS. So I think they will need to change tactics if they want to rubbish it properly.
Thanks, Jamo. Presumably they’ve got a fair bit of time to find an attack that works!
Lefty E, the tertiary student problem is because of changes to Austudy which didn’t get through the Senate last year and may not (at least in time for the start of the academic year) this year either.
It’s something to do with gap years, and being classified as independant for the purpose of getting Austudy. (I wasn’t paying a huge amount of attention, but I understand why the students are annoyed. I think they may be blaming Sen Fielding, though, so it’s all good.)
I agree that the main thrust of Labors attack was that Abbott doesn’t eblieve in Climate Change’.
Abbott and Pyne waffled a lot; Hunt quoted from the minerals council and stated that the Coalitions policy was better because it didn’t move money around or something; Garrett also emphasised that the Liberals were just ‘picking winners’ and that the coalition did not have any economic credibility.
The Coalitions main thrust seemed to be that Labor’s policy was a ‘great big new tax’, First Dog on the Moon’s interpretation was that it was a ‘great big nude tax’.
It’s a winner of a policy!!!
Best thing since sliced bread.
And I haven’t even looked at it.
But I’m sure the msm will confirm my…um, er, … ‘deeply considered response’.
I couldn’t agree more. How about we try something simple like James Hansen’s fee-and-dividend idea? i.e. We tax the carbon at the mine or port, and we use the proceeds to pay an equal dividend to every man, woman and child every quarter.
Sure the coal miners would scream, the power generators would squeal, and the “trade exposed emissions intensive industries” would moan, but the punters might just buy it.
Update [by Mark]: Ben Eltham analyses the policy in New Matilda:
No one seems to be actually looking at the policy. It’s very similar to the frontier economics report that Turnbull and Xenophon commissioned last year.
It’s basically a carbon tax that only kicks in if you go over a ‘baseline’. So there is still a price to be paid on your carbon usage. Go above the baseline and you get a penalty, go below and you get paid. The marginal price is still there.
I’m surprised that the govt, to my knowledge, hasn’t picked up the tax idea yet.
“Garrett also emphasised that the Liberals were just ‘picking winners’”
Another example of poor strategy. The public couldnt give a shit about abstract market hoohaa like that – never has.
They like the idea of picking winners – especially Australian ones. Industry policy is as ingrained in the Australian psyche as the bush.
Sure, we dont actually live there anymore – but its what Australia is about.
LeftE,
I agree with both of those points.
However I have recently been forced by Labout Outsider to come to grips with the CPRS, and it is really very simple. But to understand it there was a piece of information missing, information which made it both difficult and undesireable for the government to explain the CPRS. That piece of information was the anticipated increase in the price of electricity once the CPRS was under way. That information was recently made visible by IPART, the pricing advisory body for the electricity industry (an industry that is quite tiny in relation to Australia’s GNP on the one hand and the emissions that it produces on the other). Once the government declared that the CPRS was essentially for the stationary industry alone (agriculture, transport energy and industry were too difficult to include in one mechanism) the calculation became very simple.
(((Gross turnover of the industry post CPRS) minus (the Gross Turnover of the electricity industry pre CPRS)) minus (compensations paid out)) times (the time that it takes to fix the emissions problem)) times the abatement rate adjustemt (probably .67)
That comes to a figure that business has to bear, which in turn means that the public has to bear (passed on through prices). There is no free lunch. My guess is that the CPRS will cost between 300 billion and 450 billion dollars over 30 years. If anyone has a different figure I am keen to hear it.
@29 – http://larvatusprodeo.net/2010/01/31/mega-tax-scare-campaign-game-two-can-play/
@32 but that was before the policy was announced and I took Rudd to be referring to the tax revenue that would be needed to fund the subsidies.
The scheme itself is very similar to a carbon tax but I haven’t heard the govt use that line of attack in parliament.
Sure, MattC, but it lays the groundwork for it. I’m sure they might have had a fair idea of what was going to be in the announcement, given the previous stuff that’s been recycled into it.
“Research will also be undertaken on the potential for high voltage direct current cables to support the establishment of large scale renewable energy projects in remote locations and to help reclaim land currently lost to high voltage transmission corridors in our cities.”
What? “Research will also be undertaken on the potential” oh they don’t really mean it then.
But it will attract the land developer vote.
Huggy.
Well here is the headline,
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/abbott-unveils-1b-climate-fund-plan-20100202-nagg.html
So one billion dollars a year? Huh. Abbott is thinking this through as if the money is coming out or his own pocket.
For the sake of those who think that 1 billion dollars is a lot of money in national terms, 1 billion is 10,000 times 100,000, or 1,000 times 1,000,000. So Abbott is saying that by giving Australia’s 2 million businesses a payment of $500 for 3 years running this will be enough of an incentive to eliminate the emission of CO2 from their businesses? This is LaLa land stuff. My strata group spent more than that repainting the car park yellow lines.
I think that we can all soon expect to see the collection plate under our noses being shaken to encourage us to put in our environemntal stipend. Seriously, I think that it is time for the Abbott to return to the Monestary for some contemplation on Monetary Reality.
BillB, you should have got some Newstart recipients to paint the yellow-lines, that’s how Tony Abbott is gonna plant 20 million trees.
“I have just written a blog post attempting to explain the difference between the price of emissions and cost of mitigation – something that the Coalition does not appear to understand.”
Unfortunately, they understand the difference completely. They are relying on the fact that the average voter doesn’t understand the difference and that the ALP leadership doesn’t understand it enough to convince the electorate otherwise.
Matt C – a baseline and credit scheme is actually quite different from a carbon tax, though it does, like an ETS, put an implicit price on carbon. It is probably closer in design to the MRET than the CPRS or a proper carbon tax.
The department of climate change will go through this new policy line by line and unpick it. In most analyses I have seen baseline and credit schemes meet a given carbon target less efficiently than either a carbon tax or a cap and trade ETS. Whether the government is up to the task of rebutting the plan remains to be seen.
LOL. Abbott’s “great big new tax” line didn’t last 45 seconds of mild scrutiny by Kerry. Now its a ‘drag/ churn’ on the economy. What a loser!
Good to see Rudd’s FINALLY got a simply 3 point explanation of the CPRS.
Now if he can just explain why it doesnt actually cut emissions by 5% – merely buys those reductions from elsewhere – we’ll have a ball game. One the favours the Greens.
Looking through the document, the coalition must definitely be banking on the public being taken for fools. On page 22 of the policy they have a table that sets out their estimates of the implicit CO2 price per tonne of the various abatement actions contained in their policy. They all have a positive implicit CO2 price of course, yet the coalition are claiming that this can be imposeed without the additional costs being passed on to consumers and without negative economic side effects in the short to medium term.
Matt C @29,
I’m finding it a bit difficult to work out what the policy actually is. In some ways it seems like a baseline and credit scheme, some projects, including soil carbon, which reduce emissions and are picked to be low-cost (without picking winners) and additional qualify for payments at some marginal price. But what is the marginal price? Some activities that are particularly emissions intensive will have to pay a marginal price. What kind of activities, and what price they will have to pay, against what baseline, are all questions to be answered. Nevertheless, the report accuses Labor of not being able to explain the detail of the ETS.
I can see some of the ideas possibly working in the land use sector, but applying it to the economy seems like a mess. It seems more like a bunch of ad-hoc measures than anything like a comprehensive carbon price.
Peter – this was always the danger of the coalition coming up with an alternative policy. They now need to defend something concrete, that was always going to lack detail, without the resources of government. Abbott himself will have no idea how to explain how a baseline and credit scheme is going to work.
The line Labor should be running is that the coalition’s scheme is like a new tax, except their is no detail, not costing, no guaranteed reductions because there is no aggregate cap, and households will receive no compensation for the price increases that result from it.
In the washup from this policy I think Turnbull will be proved right that the coalition should have passed the ETS with amendments.
He didn’t do a very good job of explaining it on the 7 30 Report, LO, and also got mired in responding to “climate change is crap” and the lie about the supposed cost to taxpayers of the ETS.
It was, indeed, a very poor performance by Abbott on the 7.30 Report.
All of a sudden, when he had an interviewer who was capable of moving off a script with thoughtful questions and follow ups, he was all over the place. Such a contrast to the virtual promo runs he received over the break. You could see his obvious disappointment when the thing was done.
As I understand it from the 7.30 Report, Abbott’s climate change policy is : Plant more trees, but not as many as Bob Hawke, and trust big business. I can’t be the only person in Oz scratching my head and thinking “This guy really is a moron!”
I think Rudd has chosen a good line by describing the Coalition’s proposal as a ‘con job’, he can follow through with this as the (lack of) details become more apparent – and some of the comparisons in the report are definitely a con. I wouldn’t describe the coalitions proposal as like a tax, because that reinforces the message that action on climate change is like a tax.
What the government has failed to do and must do is highlight the transfer of income to households. I’m not sure if the government is right to describe the transfers as assistance measures – I’d be more inclined to frame it more as a ‘dividend’, or as households getting what they should get in accordance with the ‘polluter pays principle’. But I’m sure the PM’s focus group can sort out the framing.
I would be inclined to increase the assistance to households and bring that forward – they could do this as part of a deal with the Greens at the same time as going for an interim carbon tax. By doing this, it will neutralise the Coalition’s message that the ETS is a ‘big tax’. If possible, bring the assistance forward as much as possible.
The government should also sell ‘low-carbon’ and ‘clean-energy’ jobs, but not talk about ‘green jobs’ because that sounds little better than a work for the dole program. Finally they should use the coalition’s plan to attack its economic credibility, because that is the issue that voters care about the most.
Jesus, just watched the 7.30 report: wow, it was even worse than I thought. He is going to be eviscerated. They will need dental records to identify him after this election.
@38 Those studies reject baseline and credit schemes largely because of their potential to encourage rent seeking. For example, Garnuat says (p. xx)
“The choice of algorithm introduces a high and unavoidable degree of arbitrariness into the design of a baseline and credit scheme. This would raise transaction costs and encourage rent-seeking behaviour (as the entire rent value
of permit scarcity accrues to existing emitters).”
Geez, I wonder if they might want to re-evaluate that judgement, after the absolute snoutfest we’ve seen during the ETS. Rent-seeking will always be an issue in these schemes.
And, the thing that makes this more like a tax, is that there’ll be a price, not credits or permits, that are traded in a market.
Sorry, that’s p. 310 of Garnaut
@47 – patrickg, yep. Anyone who thought that Abbott and his plan are some sort of stroke of political genius should be doing some rethinking right about now.
Question: given that the LNP’s policy is incentive-based and funded out of consolidated revenue, is it more progressive than the ALP’s CPRS (which seems to have the effect of making energy more expensive for the consumer but offsets that with household assistance)?
BBB
The interesting thing is that the executive summary says:
. Does this mean a reduction equivalent to 5% of 1990 (Less than 3% of current emissions) or reducing emissions to 5% below the 1990 figure. (Which means reducing current emissions by over 40%) The first figure is a con and the other an amazing result for an expenditure of a lousy one billion/yr. It is also worth noting that the government is using a different base year so it will be very interesting see how the promised cuts really compare.
I am a fan of direct action, that is, real direct action that does things like set up contracts for the supply of clean electricity or introduces regulations such as Turnbull’s regulations on electric light efficiency. There are elements of this in the coalition policy document but am I the only one to feel that the emphasis was on emphasizing that their policy has an expenditure cap. To summarize a Clayton’s policy aimed at reassuring the skeptics that they will do their best to do next to nothing.
If the government is smart they will see this as an opportunity to dump the increasingly unpopular CPRS and present “A real climate action plan” that will actually make a difference.
…leaving aside for the moment the obviously critical question of whether the LNP’s policy actually achieves what it purports to achieve.
BBB
I see Abbott even resorted to a “people who keep the lights on” line – very Bjelke circa 85.
I’m not sure that is true BBB because the ALP’s compensation is quite progressive – it explicitly over-compensates low-income households and undercompensates high income households.
OMG! Did anyone see the Barnaby Joyce interview on Lateline? No wonder Virginia Trioli did the cuckoo motion as the guy is clearly crackers. It was a stella performance even by his low standards. He was largely incomprehensible and strung a series of non sequiturs together hoping Leigh Sales wouldn’t notice. It came on top of an excruciating interview with People Skills who managed to look more vacuous than usual. In both instances I just wanted it to stop but it went on and on and on. The reportage in the Murdoch camp was telling as it was luke warm at best. I expect them to redouble their efforts tomorrow though. They will need a hell of a lot more spit than usual to polish this turd of a policy.
Barnyard always looks like he’s about to blow a valve these days!
I agree he’s incoherent, but I’m sorry to tell you that plays very well in rural QLD.
He was truly horrible tonight, though, Lefty E. Babbling. I wondered if he was drunk. He appeared completely incapable of explaining, let alone defending, the ‘policy’.
New post with a link to Abbott on 7 30 *and* a quote from Joh B-P!
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2010/02/02/so-just-whose-policy-sounds-more-complex-now/
I didnt see Barmarmy tonight. Will go have a look now. Sounds like fun.
LE: it’s an absolute corker. Politics hasn’t been this much fun in ages (if you can keep your mind off that depressing 3C rise stuff).
Yes, I’ve thoroughly enjoyed the first day of Parliament returning! At least it’s going to be a fun election year with clowns like these running the Coalition. And the Shanahans/Van Onselens/Albechtsens/Kerrs, etc. to tell us how the fact they’re losing really means they’re winning.
I can’t believe anyone thought that abandoning any form of market-based emissions reduction was good policy, especially for the Libs. The contradictions between pursuing a state-funded regulatory program to reduce emissions while still trying to play to the deniers are just too great, and Abbott is already having trouble trying to keep all the balls up in the air.
This is looking like a running sore right here. I predict within a month or two he’ll have to drastically alter his scheme to try and neutralise it as a political issue and limit the damage, which will only bolster the impression of policy on the run.
Be interesting to see if that’s the case, Leinad. I thoroughly agree that the contradictions both within the policy and the constituencies it’s supposed to appeal to are unable to be magicked away.
Yep, there was a reason smarter figures in the coalition initially decided on an ETS. You can create a market, get business interested, generate income, compensate your pals, buy off voters, and its STILL flexible enough to call a zero % cut a 5% one.
All you do is chuck the Pacific nations $100,000 for going under water and freeing up carbon credits. Pretend it was yours!
No wonder Howard liked it.
Well, no real thought has gone into the implications of ‘direct action’ – unless it’s supposed to show how bike-riding Tony *gets things done* unlike blacmangey bureaucrat KRudd. The only reason they’ve gone with it is that the ETS became identified with the desire to tear down Turnbull and with the politics of Liberal and National party denialism. Now they’re stuck with the worst of both worlds – windy rhetoric none of them (denialist or otherwise) believe in. Politically, it’s going to be a huge crock.
Agree Mark – the politics of “I KNOWS! Let’s oppose teh everything!!1!” has led them up this Khyber pass.
Now for the slaughter.
It’ll be a wild ride, Lefty E! Lots of thrills and spills on the way.
On why he no longer says climate change isn’t real (or is “absolute crap”) – “There was a little bit of rhetorical hyperbole in there which does not represent my considered position. Look, I’m not as evangelical about this as Prime Minister Rudd is. I mean I’m not as theological about this as Prime Minister Rudd is.”
On Rudd’s ETS and the previous support of the Liberal Party – “The world has moved on.”
Malcolm Turnball saying in the party room that his plan wasn’t credible – “He meant in the long term.” Kerry O’Brien went pale.
On whether his reductions are enough for Kyoto, and where the shortfall might be made up – “If it is a reduction in emissions, that’s what matters, not what Kyoto says… I’m confident that if we’re going to get global progress here it will have to be recognised.”
But I think Abbott’s quite deliberate in everything he says – and he’s a better speaker than he appeared in that interview. I think it was a deliberate performance designed to undermine the credibility and seriousness of the interview. I have confidence that Kerry O’Brien will go back to the drawing board and throw the book on double-speak at the little weasel next time.
Can someone let the Greens have a say so we can have some intelligent debate about climate change, please? Apparently, even though Australians aren’t that concerned about climate change (so say some polls, apparently), the major parties are setting the stage for it to be the issue of the next election. Wouldn’t this be Abbott’s first official policy? I think if the Greens can get 10% of the vote, then they need at least 10% of the media reporting, particularly on this issue. Speak up, Bob Brown. Just don’t yell at Obama when he visits.
I meant to post my last comment under “So just whose policy sounds more complex now?”, so please read in that context.
I was out last night. Can anybody point me to Kevin Rudd’s succinct 3-point explanation of the CPRS?
Not verbatim Robert, but more or less:
1. it puts a cap on emissions
2. it makes polluters pay for them
3. it uses the money raised to compensate ornery punters for price rises
Robert, I heard Rudd’s three-point commentary yesterday on the radio. I thought it was quite neat, but can’t remember it.
Christine Milne had a 3-point critique of Abbott’s policy this morning on RN’s Breakfast.
The first was it had to satisfy the science. FAIL.
Secondly it had to lead to a transformation of the economy. FAIL.
I was distracted for the third, but I think it had to do with international expectations, where it also failed.
She was followed by Greg Combet and a bloke from the Wentworth Group who last year issued a report recommending soil carbon storage. He said that by itself soil carbon storage was no where near enough to take us where we had to go.
Recently farmer David Drage of Warracknabeal, Vic, went on a Nuffield scholarship to study soil carbon potential overseas.
Too flaky, too risky and it simply won’t fly.
There’s more than three points here, but this is what Rudd was saying.
Combet was also stressing Tony says climate change is “crap” and emphasising the “con job” meme.
The Oz:
Tony Abbott’s cut-through climate plan
What a joke!
Take one aspect of Rasputin’s CC policy — trees …
Rasputin claims that he is pricing abatement at $15 per tonne of carbon. A tree sequesters anywhere between 10kg and 100kg of CO2 while they are living
So what Rasputin is saying is that he can install and support a tree for 100 years for between $AUS0.15 and $1.50. I doubt you can keep a museum exhibit in good nick for that price.
Fran, that has got to be “between 10kg and 100kg”…per year.
LeftE72,
Rudd’s 3 points will not stand up to proper scrutiny.
1 It does put a cap on primary energy emissions
2 Poluters do pay, but only in the sense that we are all poluters
3 Ornery punters are only part compensated.
The only thing that has to be said is that it is affordable and it gets the job of eliminating primary CO2 emissions, and it is convincingly complete.
OK BilB, I was simply relying on the person from the Wentworth Group on RN this morning, and he left that unclear, but your estimate seems more reasonable, given the ultimate biomass of a large slow-growing tree.
That said, really what we ought to be rewarding is ton-years of carbon sequestration. Plainly, sequestering a ton of carbon for 1 year is not as valuable as if one stores it for 100 years or 1000 years. A tree that lasts 100 years will start handing back its 99th year of carbon a year later.
Rasputin’s estimate doesn’t seem to pay much attention to this at all.
@74 – Brian, here’s the bit from Rudd that made it onto the news last night (and a bit more!):
http://www.pm.gov.au/node/6459
Relying on vegetation to offset our massive over consumption of fossil fuels is conceptually and scientifically totally unsound. In practical terms what will happen is that one country will do the right thing and promote constraint with deforestation, this will cause a shortfall in availability of timber, illegal logging will spring up somewhere else, resulting in zero improvement to the atmospheric CO2 balance. Some countries will have “balanced eco books” and the overall position will decline. This is why I believe that the ETS concept is a nonsense, at least as far as the biological environment is concerned.
Having said that, yes we must plant trees. This is not, however, a solution to the problem of runaway CO2 emissions. The process of climate change promises to completely change the eco carbon distribution over the next 50 years and in the process undo all that was previously done from a “tree planting” point of view.
One little piece of trivia that came out of very early bio carbon sequestration research (1980’s) is that trees do not grow larger with a higher atmospheric CO2 availability, but they do grow larger root systems. This would be a good thing if the roots could be transformed into biochar after the tree had finished growing.
Anyone who thinks that natural carbon sinks play by human accounting rules would do well to research the history of the European ETS and its environmental connection.
BilB said:
Precisely why we need a system in which all net emissions apply for credit from the same pool and if there are jurisdictions outside the system then they need to be hit with tariffs that render their evasions moot.
Where that rolls of the tongue so freely, one system fits all Fran, it is far more difficult in practice. This is why it is not included, as originally envisaged, in the CPRS which only covers stationary energy so far. Industrial processes and agriculture are more difficult to define on the one hand and are far more employment sensitive on the other. This sector does have to be resolved, but the solutions may take longer to develop.
BilB
It should go without saying that absent a model that would allow bona fide and realtime data on agricultural/forestry fluxes one should be cautious in allowing credits — which I take it was your point.
Personally, I’d quite like a system that was able to put a non-arbitrary value on the integrity and scope of biomes and allow that to attract funding quite independently of any emissions trading system. If such a thing could be general, then one could simply exclude REDD credits of this kind. If, over time, a good model for measuring the net effect on anthropogenic emissions became available, then perhaps those providing partial funding could get partial credit by buying from the managers of the biome a given number of credits.
As to non-plantation timber (and indeed agricultural and other products not produced sustainably), I’d like to see a tariff imposed on the docks, which would be eased/lifted when the operation met certain sustainability baselines.
Part of Rudd’s problem at the moment is that he is trapped by the “Nixon effect”. As a result he has to keep supporting a “market based” system to convince people he is a conservative economic manager. The problem is this has lumbered him with the complex market based CPRS system that is looking more and more like a political and economic dog.
Abbot, on the other hand, doesn’t have to prove he is conservative so, just like Nixon on China, he is free to take a less ideological approach such as direct action. A direct action plan makes good political and economic sense at the moment and would have been easy for someone like Turnbull with a record for supporting environmental action to sell. The coalitions problem is that Abbot is the wrong person to sell this policy on the grounds that he comes across as having little commitment to climate action. Abbot has supported this perception by putting forward a proposal that doesn’t spell out that it actually promises smaller reduction than Labor’s. (Coalition’s 5% is based on 1990 emissions, Labor’s on 2000 emissions which are much higher.)
I am hoping that Rudd will find a way to drop his obsession with market based solutions, come up with a better direct action plan than the coalitions and get some real action started by the next election. The coalition has reached a point where the only way the coalition could get out of its climate action commitment hole would be to have another change of leader.
I think, Fran, that particularly for agriculture there is in immense variability in profitability resulting from seasonal changes, cyclic weather systems, industry nature, international market variability, customer agression (Woolworths Coles National Foods McDonalds), etc. This variability makes a new cost overlay a risky proposition. In my opinion there would have to be a very substantial study of agricultural industry groups with a view to installing industry group associations or cooperatives to monitor and manage the process towards lower emissions with funding from an emmisions penalty levy.
The best parallel would be seen in marine harvesting where a study is necessary to determine the strength of a marine stock before harvest levels can be set. Although done for an entirely different purpose this is what would have to be done with most agricultural sectors. An arbitrary emissions charge that would be tolerable for some farming sectors may very well be the last straw for others and unnecessarily kill off worthwhile, but marginal, persuits. The electricity has IPART to advise and set new pricing levels to allow for the CPRS and the anticipated cost of infrastructure adjustment. The agricultural sector will need the same for every group.
Mark @79, a small question regarding the PM’s statement: ” The second thing it does is that it charges Australia’s biggest polluters for their pollution.”
As I understood it, the biggest polluters would be charged, but then massively compensated also. So are they “charged” in nett terms, or aren’t they?
Speaking of magic “cut and come again” puddings, Rudd seems to have one of his own, doesn’t he?
Did anyone else see Barnaby Joyce’s Press Club Address today? Especially his answers to the questions afterwards?
Appalling. No real answers. Poorly constructed replies. Jokey and tangential (all good fun, as long as he is the parliamentary comedy act).
A pile of waffly crap in answering whether he thought climate change was a problem, or whether the coalition was just playing a political game. I didn’t hear any clearly articulated position. Did anyone else?
To say nothing of the evasive waffle on how he planned to improve Australia’s financial position, speaking on shadow Finance issues. Lots of Tanner/Rudd kicking, but not much in the way of alternatives.
No mention of the GFC during the last 2 years, and how that altered the financial priorities. It was as if the government decisions had been made in a sealed system, independent of outside influences on our trading, banking and financial sectors. He wants to be in charge of Finance? With Hockey floundering about beside him in Treasury?
Barnaby, Tone, Julie and Joe are seriously offering themselves as the alternative government of Australia???
@86 – Indeed, Elise.
“Having said that, yes we must plant trees.”
Where will they be planted? On agricultural land? On land held by government for the future expansion of cities? People talk about planting trees as if it’s an easy and obvious thing to do, but it’s not that easy politically – as was obvious on this site recently, it’s not even that easy to stop vegetation clearance.
It’s also not that easy practically. There is currently some question over whether we currently have enough of a genetic resource [ie: local provenance seeds] to fulfill current revegetation commitments, much less expand on it.
I don’t think people have really grasped in full the impacts of fragmentation in the natural landscape and the practical implications of that, in terms of restoring natural ecosystems – or engaging in large scale revegetation. This is particularly true when it comes to pollination [and therefore seed production]. Likewise erratic seasons compromise the ability to plan for revegetation, for example this year, for reasons unknown, native legumes of many genera have produced no seed at all. Added to this is the fact that greater numbers of trees that go in the ground will not make it through the first summer, because of early unseasonably warm weather and longer dry spells.
“Personally, I’d quite like a system that was able to put a non-arbitrary value on the integrity and scope of biomes and allow that to attract funding quite independently of any emissions trading system. If such a thing could be general, then one could simply exclude REDD credits of this kind. If, over time, a good model for measuring the net effect on anthropogenic emissions became available, then perhaps those providing partial funding could get partial credit by buying from the managers of the biome a given number of credits.”
Interesting idea, particularly the notion of a ‘non-arbitrary’ value, how would you see this being measured?
Oh my God, furious balancing. No more trees to be planted in Australia, ever again. Seven million square kilometres and nothing new will grow, because there is just no room and for all of your other thoroughly researched reasons? The children will be so disappointed.
Furious Balancing, noting my idea of a non-arbitrary value on the integrity and scope of biomes asked:
Tricky, but I see key components being
a) the extent to which fauna, flora and other biota that are historically peculiar to the locale are secure against loss
b) the extent to which the biome in its optimal state is sustainable without human intervention on the land/water course itself
c) the extent of biodiversity within the area in question
d) the extent to which the system can contribute to the corpus of human knowledge of the operation of ecosystems and ecosystem services
e) the role the biome plays in protecting vulnerable species from loss in something like a natural habitat
f) the extent to which the biome underpins the scope indigenous people have to maintain elements of their culture
g) the extent to which the good maintenance of the biome can be carried on by people local to the area
Some allowance would have to be made of course for the challenges that changing climate is likely to pose to those seeking to protect the integrity of natural systems. It is very clear for example that glacier-fed riparian systems are going to need considerable human interventyion to survive. Similarly, the retreat of cool temperate and alpine ecosystems probably cannot be reversed or maintained at full integrity until climate change itself is halted and then reversed.
Obviously, in weighing these matters I’d want independent ecologists and (where relevant) anthropologists with specialist local knowledge to evaluate these and other pertinent factors, publish their findings in a suitable journal of record and give it a value per hectare. Then, an international fund could give financial support on that basis to those bearing the costs of maintaining it each year, after an independent audit. If the integrity of the biome had fallen, and if the people repsonsible had been shown to have failed, ion consulation with the relvant government new tenders would be called to do the work. If the value had improved, more money would obviously flow.
And as I said, if those operating the biome could independently show that they were sequestering net carbon dioxide, they could be awarded carbon credits which they could sell to raise further funds.
Thank you for another well considered response, Bill. Once you’ve finished your research on the Great Artesian Basin, you might want to consider brushing up on issues relating to ecological sciences, and why most ecologists roll their eyes when anyone suggest that “tree planting” is any kind of solution to our environmental problems.
I never said that it was FB, I do however support the planting of trees anywhere that they can be placed. And one really good place to plant trees is along waterways in salt affected areas, yes…on private land, where this has the potential to better control the ground water level thereby preventing further damage. Everything that I have read suggests that more trees are better, pretty well everywhere. I think that I am solidly on record as saying that planting trees is not a “solution” to the present global warming problem, but every little bit helps.
But surely planting a few trees won’t actually do any harm, furious. I’ll be very disappointed if the 5 acres I’ve had direct-drilled on my paddock turn out to be a complete waste of time.
David@94 – what was on those 5 acres prior to the seeding?
Not much. It was a clapped-out wheat’n’sheep paddock.
It looks pretty good at the moment, actually. The other 15 acres have a dense covering of (dry) weeds and grasses at the moment. I found about 20 different plant species growing last time it was green, and it’s got quail, lizards, and a few snakes. (Also rosellas and galahs visit.)
My tongue was firmly in my cheek, btw, furious.
By the way, talking about the effect of the changing climate and increasing frequency of El Nino patterns on our fauna and flora, it is also bad for fauna and flora on the other side of the Pacific.
I was just watching a science documentary on Galapagos, where they say that bad El Ninos cause mass deaths of wildlife on the islands. Presumably, with increasing frequency, it would make it difficult for some species to recover in between these events?
I would put ten dollars on a protest vote but you have to harmonise with Rudds Kung Fu and boycott your liberal voting friends otherwise those that literally hate your progenys progeny will be allowed to continue their reign of terror which is always the same: OBFUSCATION of what really matters!
They are getting ready for a name change… I can’t see any other option for the crack smoking followers of tryhard elitism!
David @ 94, I think planting a few trees will in the least(…that’s what you are asking?!!?) provide wind breaks and keep some soil down! Maybe even keep some salt down, aswell!
Salinity is not a problem in the area where my paddock is, KeIThy.
The trees are intended to provide windbreak, habitat, and woodlot. I was actually gently taking the piss.
JohnD@84,
I think that what you have said is 3/4 of the problem.
Fran, my apologies, I did not see your post and was on the way to a meeting when I responded to Bill’s post. Strangely, pages don’t seem to reload on my phone when I hit submit.
To a certain extent the information gathering on the components that could underpin your idea has/or is happening, it’s the costing part that would be tricky – it’s funny I had an interesting conversation with an American ecologist who had a background in economics when I was in Western Australia, and he came up with one idea that was not all that dissimilar to yours – [his other idea was Australia as biodiversity theme park, hehe]. He was blown away [smitten is probably not to strong a word] by the WA landscape and somewhat stunned by the cost involved in restoration work – ie: $20,000 per hectare at one place we visited.
I think, the more complex and loaded the notion of putting a cost on carbon becomes, the trickier it becomes to try and factor ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation into the equation too. I’d love to see a plan similar to the one you mention, but I get a feeling that the carbon economy may be the only chance we get to ‘put a price’ on the integrity of the landscape..and well, so far that’s not getting an easy ride.
Bill, we are doing the little bits, we have been for years [decades], of course there is no ‘harm’ in doing that [in the most obvious sense of the word - we could argue over what we might have been achieved in those decades if our time/money/energies had been better directed]. What I’m trying to address is the practical reality we face if we continue to swallow the idea that planting a bunch of trees is a cheap and easy way to restore the environment, much less mitigate carbon emissions. It’s not cheap, and it is not easy and it is sadly quite fallible. I actually think that the per annum increase in electricity prices we might face from the Rudd government plan would seem insignificant alongside the actual cost’s involved in tree planting ‘direct action’.
DI {nr} “My tongue was firmly in my cheek, btw, furious.”
*snickers* for a nano-second I thought you were serious.
“I found about 20 different plant species growing last time it was green, and it’s got quail, lizards, and a few snakes. (Also rosellas and galahs visit.)”
Do you mean you found 20 native plant species in the 15 acres, or in the direct seeded area?
On the subject of direct seeding, and just so I don’t sound completely defeatist and negative about this stuff – The folks in Western Australia recently identified the molecule in smoke that triggers germination. It’s a pretty exciting advancement for direct seeding restoration projects, reducing the amount of seed needed to be drilled, not to mention getting germination on plants that have thus far been very difficult to propagate. Mind you the kind of minds at work in Western Australia are pretty impressive, we should take that kind of intellectual resource for granted either – I’d say some of those people come along once in a generation, intimidatingly smart.
oops, I should probably have indicated that the $20,000/hectare restoration cost was post-titanium-mining, a significant amount of that was earthmoving/mixing to restore soil profile, the number of plant species to be replaced was low. From memory, I think the seed collection, direct seeding and weed reduction component amounted to $8000.00/per hectare, I reckon it was only about a dozen species they were putting back into the landscape. I’ll try and find my notes on it on the weekend.
Furious, I haven’t done an estimate of the plant species in the direct-seeded area, but there are certainly several acacia species, several eucalypt species, ruby and fragrant saltbush, casuarina, bursaria, and others. (I’m not very knowledgeable about plant species, unless they’re edible.)
The 15 acres of pasture (for want of a better word) has feral wheat, barley, canola and peas (from previous cropping), numerous weed species (including cut-leaf mignonette, Salvation Jane and thistles), barley grass, rye grass, something my son assures me is vetch, several types of clover, and some dryland lucerne another son and I broadcast. Oh, and ruby saltbush. Lots and lots of it. There are also about half a dozen olive trees I planted along the creek line.
Furious@103
I certainly agree that the potential costs in some areas may well be quite high, but I would make several observations:
1. A good part of the areas we’d want to protect would be in places with a far lower cost structure.
2. Some areas are less feasible to restore than others
3. Much of this work could probably be done by people working in a community service/study mode. There are many people who would be willing to donate service under certain conditions to do this kind of work
4. At the moment, it costs between $US500k and $US1m per year to keep a US soldier in the field. Reecently, as we saw in the US under TARP, most of 1 trillion was given away to prop up corporate shonks who were seen as too bit to fail. I’d describe biodiversity and ecosystem services as “too big to fail” and if I had to choose which to save …
The resources exist to do the things we need to do. We just need to do them.
David, good luck with your endeavours on your property. I’m more interested in growing food than growing natives myself, and I’d quite like to have a bit more room to play with, [I have a backyard]. PS: let me know if you ever want to kill those olives!
Fran, [with a disclaimer that I'm talking from a South Australian perspective], to a certain extent what you advocate in terms of the prioritising of high conservation value areas and their management is already happening. That’s why I asked about the non-arbitrary valuing of conservation land, just to get a sense of what it was that you thought should be ‘valued’.
Most of the management is being done by professional labour. I do not want to diminish the role of community groups in this, but since I used to work for the community sector, I think most would be surprised to learn that it is actually costs more than than using professional labour. I think the real value in the community sector could be measured through outcomes other than environmental, ie: health/well-being/community engagement. The benefit to the environment however is mostly through the education and promoting the merits of the environmental restoration.
The reason I’m being a bit of a big mouth about this stuff lately is because I see a bit of a catch 22 going on – that is, if govt. agencies set priorities and manage land according to those priorities the results will generally be invisible to the general public. This leads to the kind of nonsense that Abbot has come up with in his plan – Ie: “green armies” and planting urban forests and green belts. This plan would take environmental planning back 20 years. To me it’s like implementing water restrictions in the knowledge that it has little real value in terms of the amount of water saved, but because it imposes itself on the population it makes people feel like their government is addressing the problem.
to address each of your points:
1. Yes, it depends on the site and the kind of threat abatement required. The highest conservation value site I work on is currently about $2000.00/hectare/year, after 4 years active management, the cost is more like $500.00/h/y. There are way too many variables to cover in terms of costing. The titanium mine example will need more ongoing threat abatement funding than a stable, relatively intact system, the same is true for any planted landscape. I mentioned the example because it puts a value on vegetation, relative to the value of the resource being mined. The ecologist was trying to wrap his head around the concept of ‘pricing nature’ and all that it means.
2. Yes. Planning/management already considers this. Unfortunately, historically conservation efforts has favoured planting over threat abatement in native landscapes. Planted landscapes have low species diversity, and are highly weedy. Native landscapes have high species diversity, and range between having few weeds to being highly modified by invasives.
3. As I mentioned volunteerism comes at more of a cost than people seem to realise. Regardless, if priorities were well set, I suspect that community service is not something that could be relied upon. As an example, in the high value site I mentioned @ 1 – the task involves methodically moving through difficult terrain, carrying a third of my body weight in a not-particularly pleasant selective herbicide, and spot-spraying an invasive south african grass that can be distinguished from native grasses by having a purple ligule [the place where the grass leaf connects with the stem]. If you know anyone who can, and is willing to do that for free, please let me know, as I’m having a little bit of trouble trying to find someone who’ll do it for a wage.
4. No argument from me there, but like I said, it IS happening. The reason that I have been in the threads that relate to the way agricultural production is impacted on by the carbon economy is because I think that there is economic, environmental, social and cultural benefits from engaging the rural sector in restoration – because aside from money the other limiting factor to restoration will be finding a workforce in the areas where it really needs to happen.